Today Senator Susan Collins introduced a compromise gun proposal to limit gun sales to people on certain terrorist watch lists. I support the proposal, even though I don’t think it goes far enough and even in spite of several seemingly reasonable arguments against it. I want to explain why.
First, there is the argument that this proposal would not have prevented Orlando or Newtown let alone the violence plaguing big cities like Chicago. That may be true, but it is not a reason to oppose the proposal for several reasons. The most consequential public policy victories of the last few decades were won not with a single sweeping piece of legislation but through incrementally building up smaller pieces to build a foundation and to make it clear that the fear, uncertainty, and doubt associated with a big change is unfounded. Examples of this include gay marriage rights and health care reform. If this policy is a good policy, opposing it on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough is wrongheaded and simply allows the great to be the enemy of the good. It’s not my opinion that we should pass this compromise and move on, but that we should use it as a starting point and build towards other sensible reforms. Even a small bill with bipartisan support would help build trust for further discussions. It would also help eliminate the fear that passing any reform whatsoever is equivalent to stepping on the political third rail.
A more interesting challenge to the proposal is the argument that using a government list (like the terror watch lists) as the basis for exclusion from a constitutional right (like the second amendment) is a slide down the path to tyranny. This sounds sensible until you pick it apart. Virtually all constitutional rights have exclusions (e.g. you can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater nor can you utter hate speech.) If the concern is that due process may not be observed, that can be resolved by allowing for an appeals process from the list. While that may seem tantamount to being considered guilty until proven innocent, that opens the whole issue of the legitimacy of the lists to restrict other rights like free travel. In fact, I don’t think it’s that different from someone being declared mentally ill (which virtually everyone accepts as a reasonable basis for exclusion from the right to buy a gun). The analysis is done by a professional and is either accepted or not accepted by a court. I may be wrong on this, but these kinds of decisions are what the Supreme Court is for.
The last point – that more guns make us safer and therefore any restriction is bad – simply flies in the face of the data. There are good reasons why people want to own guns (I own one myself) but this one doesn’t pass muster. And while I agree that not all policies make us safer, I still support this one for the reasons above.
Speaking of the courts, it’s still important to add that the scope of the second amendment has been subject to different interpretations (including skeptics of all political stripes ranging from John Paul Stevens to Robert Bork.) To simply throw up our hands and say there is no possible restriction that is constitutional is simply incorrect.